Description:
I provide a field for user to type in a date string, mostly in 'DD-MM-YYYY' format and store it later in MySQL database which uses 'YYYY-MM-DD' format. But sometimes, users use different separators such as slashes and dots. And in the edit form I have to display the date back to its original form. How do I do that (assume the input is in valid date range)?

---- It's not wise to post a reply that points to previous own nodes, or to a thread that contains one. I did this a few times but wasn't aware of the implications. While it's actually a good thing because it provides references related to the OP substance, it's simply a shameless plug. I've seen some monks replied this way but did it more appropriately than I did. (Jun 23, 2007 at 00:05 WIT)

---- Since I intented to give quick answers so the OPs could find the answer themselves, I posted many times oneliner reply that merely provided links to CPAN modules or in-site resources. In the future, I'll just do this via /msg. (Jun 23, 2007 at 00:05 WIT)

On PerlMonks

Approval weirdness

Go figure :-)

[naikonta]:i tried to approve [id://624900|this node], but the status +didn't change. what happens?
[tye]:someone feel for the trap when moving / approving nodes covered +in the site documentation
[naikonta]:if it's about page reloading, i don't think this is the cas+e. i don't any other traps.
[naikonta]:i don't know any traps
[naikonta]:tye, what do you mean by the "trap" when approving the node+s?
[tye]:moving a node to a different section then approving the node whi+le the nodelet still thinks it is in the original section
[naikonta]:but i didn't move the node, only ticked the approve check b+ox and clicked the moderate button
[naikonta]:i didn't change the section
[naikonta]:it just stayed unapproved (until almut approved it later)
[tye]:sometimes "someone" ne "you", no?
[naikonta]:the section stays the same up to now, i believe
[marto]:I moved that node
[naikonta]:i thought the moving/approving trap could only happened on +the same browser by the same person
[naikonta]:so i guess marto moved the node, i came later trying to app+rove it (it's already in the new section after moved by marto) so I w+as supposed to be able to approve it
[naikonta]:but it stayed unapproved, i tried again and still stayed th+e same. i reloaded the browser, still unable to approve. i opened the+ node in an a new tab, trying to approved and it stayed unapproved.
[naikonta]:what i didn't try is quiting and relaunching the browser
[naikonta]: but i still believe there's an explanation somewhere i mig+ht be too dumb to understand
[jZed]:sounds like religion
[fenLisesi]:the truth is out there
[naikonta]:well, maybe i'll dream about it, later in my sleep (if I ev+er get sleep) tonight :D
[tye]:trying to approve to wrong section leaves node in state where ca+n't be approved until a janitor fixes
[tye]:someone fix the docs to be less vague
[naikonta]: tye, so when i was viewing on that node, it was on section+ A. At that time the node was moved to a different section, B.
[naikonta]: When I clicked the moderate button, I was actually trying +to approve that node that I still viewed as in section A but it had b+een actually moved to section B
[naikonta]: so basically I was trying to approve a node in the wrong s+ection. Is it the case?
[tye]:no
[tye]:someone ne you. reread :)
[naikonta]:the "someone" in your "someone feel for the trap when movin+g / approving nodes covered in the site documentation"?
[tye]:yeah, that too
[naikonta]:tye, the nodelet is "someone"?
[clinton]:naikonta i think by "somebody ne you", tye meant, "somebody,+ not you"
[naikonta]: i get that, clinton. what i don't get yet is what "someone+"/" somebody" tye refers to.
[naikonta]: previously he said "moving a node to a different section t+hen approving the node while the nodelet still thinks it is in the or+iginal section"
[clinton]: somebody other than you, who happened to be doing something+ to the same node at the same time? (haven't been following the conve+rsation)
[naikonta]: could be "someone" is "nodelet" cause "nodelet still think+s ...."
[bart]: naikonta the page is in two states. You need to reload the pag+e for it being completely in the new state.
[clinton]:naikonta nodelets don't think. They lied to you
[bart]: clinton if you want to move and approve you have to 1) move 2)+ reload 3) approve
[clinton]: bart yes - i've got that. It's naikonta who is puzzled
[naikonta]: i did that bart, i also reopened the node so it must be eq+ual to reloading
[clinton]: if i remember correctly, tye said that that node had entere+d a state which requires janitorial assistance, ie there is nothing m+ore that you can do about it
[bart]: Reopening the node is actually safer.
[clinton]: probably because two people were doing things to it at the +same time
[naikonta]: i understand about the node state. just don't get what exa+ctly happened at that particular moment.